For Our Woman in Istanbul
Peter Robinson ·
Jul 6, 2010 at 5:42am
Claire, have you had the opportunity yet to read Michael Rubin's long and intensively reported article in the summer issue of Commentary? The title: "Turkey, from Ally to Enemy." One sentence:
A decade ago, Turks saw themselves in a camp with the United States, Western Europe, and Israel; today Turkish self-identity places the country firmly in a camp led by Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Hamas.
That sentence would be a lot easier to take if it weren't for one word: "firmly." Turkey now places itself firmly in the same camp as Hamas?
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: For Our Woman in Istanbul
Yes, I've read it. It's excellent. I used to think Rubin was excessively pessimistic about Turkey. I don't anymore. I still think he's neglecting many of the subtleties here--but it's impossible to capture them all in one article. The word "firmly" is perhaps too strong. But it's not insanely off-the-mark.
Jun '10
Re: For Our Woman in Istanbul
Ryan Mauro over at PJM has a different take. It's worth a read.
Jun '10
Re: For Our Woman in Istanbul
There's no political downside to becoming more radical, and actual physical danger in clinging to the West. If you're a politician, and not a particularly brave one, what are you gong to do?
Jun '10
Re: For Our Woman in Istanbul
It's been 18 years since I set foot in Turkey, but let me offer a perspective based on history. Bear with me.
In 1680 the pueblo peoples along the Rio Grande revolted against Spain and ejected the Spanish population from the province. The event was the only truly successful revolt by native peoples in the history of Spanish America.
When I was called on to teach a course in the history of New Mexico, I rejected the textbook version and consulted the primary sources because there was something about the narrative that didn't add up. The revolt had been led by a native medicine man. That much was true. But why was the reconquest by the Spanish so easy and nearly bloodless 12 years later? My conclusion based on the primary sources is that the pueblo peoples had by 1692 been Roman Catholic converts for three generations. They weren't going to revert into apostasy.
I get the same feeling about Turkey. Ataturk forced modernity on the nation. The Turks have been secularized now for four generations. I can't see them going backwards, not willingly at least.
My take anyway in 200 words.